Texas cheerleaders win in court again over Bible banners (Page 2)

No, I was not kidding.  I would have had a winkey-smiley or used the sarc font if I was.

It was a serious question.

Since I'm borderline agnostic/atheist that minimally attends a Lutheran congregation (now for sure I'll be slammed and hated) and have always had an internal battle with the separation of church and state, I felt it to be a legitimate question.

Students allowed "free speech" on government-funded school grounds should be considered, too.  If they want to express that information at a private business (and if the private business allows it), that's their choice, but allowing to express that information on school grounds should be reconsidered, shouldn't it??

It depends on the mood I'm in.  If I went to that school and encountered this scenario and, depending on the mood I was in, I would either say "Big deal ... let the kids be.  What's the problem?", or would probably react with "I'm offended since I don't believe and your treading on my freedom".  The latter is playing devil's advocate.

Some people may think this is wrong.  Some may not.  As I have stated earlier, it's an internal struggle.

I realize the bolded is just an argument, not necessarily your view, but I take issue with the argument. It doesn't infringe on anyone else, and they are free to look away.

Imagine I am in the county courthouse and see a woman wearing a Burkha, am I going to say she is infringing on my freedom and that she has to take it off? 

This would only be so if they restricted it to only one religion. If they also allow students to present signs from the torah, the koran, the christian scientist relgion etc then it is allowing any student to express it and supporting the students right to express their own religious ideals. If they say that you can have a sign up with a bible verse on it but not a verse from the dahli llama - then they are condoning a specific religious viewpoint (there are probably certain restrictions on all of these governing obscenity and violence as well but I am not sure on that point).

As long as the school is fair across the board in what it allows and does not allow - I think they should be able to have the signs up.

Regarding your question about "doesn't this go against keeping religion out of schools and such?" it's not a bad question and I'm sure it's one that many people have based upon their understanding of the state and meaning of the 1st Amendment. 

My guess is your basis for asking this question is your assumption, like many if not most peoples assumption, that the Constitution requires "the separation of church and State."  This phrase of course is not contained in the Constitution, nor is it the "test" used by the Supreme Court to determine the validity of religious entanglements on the public level.

The portion of the protections in the U.S. Constitution regarding religion and religious freedom are two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

The notion of the separation of Church and State came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson as president to a church after the church made an inquiry regarding the Federal governments potential involvement into a day of thanksgiving.  There is a strong argument to be made upon reading the letter from the Church to Jefferson and then Jeffersons reply that our modern use of the phrase separation of church and state is historically inaccurate and being used out of context.

The history of the Religion clauses of the Constitution is also interesting and may give insight into what the founders/framers believed the Religion clauses of the 1st amendment meant.  In Madison's first draft of the Religion clause of the 1st Amendment it read: "the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship;nor shall any national religion be established,nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience, in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."  After committee meetings the proposed language was altered to read: "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

ON the debates on the Religion clauses Madsion said, as evidenced in the minutes of the committee debates "apprehended the meanings of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience."

Ultimately the language we now know as the religion clauses of the 1st amendment were agreed upon.

The above is simply an attempt to demonstrate that the notion of "separation of church and state." does not come from the Constitution, nor does it come from the primary author of the Bill of Rights, and arguably its modern interpretation of the phrase may be contextually inaccurate.

All that being said, there is a danger in replacing the actual language of the constitution with the idea contained in a private letter authored several years after the passage of the Bill of Rights.  First even if our modern interpretation of the term is correct, the term itself represents the personal opinion of one person.  Second, when referring to Constitutional Rights we should at all times actually use the language of the Constitution.  Third, I believe the term "separation of church and state" imposes a higher or stricter requirement not envisioned by the actual constitution.  Forth, I am of the opinion that there is an actual effort, by some, to actively use this language in place of the actual language in the constitution in order to mis-lead people as to the actual rights contained in the Constitution.  That is, if you control language you control thought.  Most people now talk about "the separation of church and state." rather than the establishment clause.  While the difference may be subtle the effect isn't.  The simple fact is that one is contained in the Constitution, while the other does not.

So I think given the general confusion on the issue of the term "separation of church and state" and the confusion as to what that term even means, your question is one that many people would have.

This was from one of our local high schools last year. 

*side note- why does the press always interview the most country people they can find? There are plenty of some normal people in Alabama.

edited to add I just googled for this story because I remembered it from last year- I have no idea what this blog is or the rest of the content & really just watched the news clip- will be more careful before posting next time. ** I have nothing against Atheist and was not trying to bash anyone by posting this 

Wrong. The school should approve of the signage if it was originated by the students of their own free will. Just as they should approve a sign made by the drill team that says Praise Be to Allah. Or a sign that says Tom Cruise Has it Right! The school should approve of any free expression of religion by and for the students. 

There is nothing in this story to indicate that one religion is being held above others. There is no report of students of another religion being denied. 

I would think the prayer over the PA would be a much bigger deal than this banner. A prayer over the PA is coming most likely from an adult in a position of some authority so it would indicate endorsement of whichever God they are praying to.

Solution? Have an open prayer mic for 5 minutes before the game. If you want Christmas Jesus to bless the team then pray to Christmas Jesus, if you want Allah or Buddha to bless the team then pray to them. But yeah, I imagine in a town of 3,000 in Texas there aren't going to be a lot of Muslims lining up at the open mic, but as long as it is provided for them and they have the opportunity to do so then I don't see any fault on behalf of the school admin. 

NM

So how do you reconcile FCA and other groups that hold meetings on school grounds with school APPROVAL. If as you say once the school approves something they adopt it and it somehow becomes exclusive these groups should not be allowed either. 

As a former cheerleader, one thing was hammered into our heads.

When you wear the uniform, you are a representative of the school.

Period.

This was taken to an extreme because I cheered for the number 1 ranked basketball team (UMass in 1995-96 season).

This even filtered down to the label on our clothes.

I actually had to have two different sets of athletic clothing because we were not allowed to be seen, especially on TV, wearing anything from a sponsor's competitor.

UMass meant Nike only; NCA meant Asics only.

The rules for when you are in a school's uniform representing the school should be different.

Well then that's UMass' policy.  But if the school policy is that the 1st Amendment is still valid, it's still valid.

FCA is open to members of other faiths to participate in the functions.  There's a muslim kid who participated in the FCA where I used to live.

I work with a prison ministry that is the same way.  The material is all christianity, anyone can attend and do the work to get the certificate that helps in their parole board.  Some change faiths, some don't.  It has had such a positive effect on behavior and cutting recidivism that the head of the prison system has asked the organization to open additional "dorms" in several prisons.  

We're trying to get God out of schools and into the prisons...

I remember when it was the other way around and there were less prisoners.

Your statements of "Once the school approves anything, it certainly becomes the established speech of a governmental body and belongs to the school."  and ..."but looks the other way and tacitly allows the students to have free speech." are both inaccurate statements on the current state of the law regarding the establishment clause.

It is not accurate to say that if a student does something, or any individual does something, on the grounds of a governmental institution, then that statement by the private citizen becomes the actions or speech or policy of the governmental agency.  This is simply not the case.

Whether on the facts of this particular case the decision will be upheld at higher court levels remains to be seen.  However, I believe your view of what the establishment clause allows and doesn't allow is too expansive.

Additionally, the government cannot "tacitly allow" anyone to have free speech.  The actual requirement is that the government MUST allow free speech, absent some valid reason to infringe upon free speech.

Again there are three issues at play here: 1. Free speech, 2. The Establishment clause and 3. the free exercise clause.

The issue of the cheerleaders free speech rights are different from the issue of a violation of the establishment clause.  While they are inter related in under the facts of this case the issues are different.  The first issues deals with whether there can be an infringement upon the free speech rights of the cheerleaders based upon some reasonable time, place, manner restriction of speech.  The later issue deals with whether what the cheerleaders are doing is de facto the actions of the school and then if so do those actions violate the establishment clause.

or how about this example:  If a student athlete at a game, wearing the school jersey, while participating in the game, a public school, a state sponsored sports league, a game between another public school, and that athlete is wearing a crucifix and after a play bends down and prays in public...is this then the "established speech of the governmental body" and thus the "school owns" it?